Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "BREAKING: Naomi Biden CARJACKED in DC; Secret Service OPEN FIRE After Attempted SUV Break-In" video.

  1. "Unoccupied vehicle" is not a carjacking. If the owner or lawful occupant is not in the car or near the car, it is NOT a carjacking. It is auto theft.
    187
  2. You did not fall under the influence of horrible people. That's good. It does happen.
    8
  3. The headline creates a justification for an apparently unlawful shooting in defense of mere property, and Secret Service protection in defense of mere property. Do presidential grandchildren's cars get a Secret Service detail now? I thought just their persons merited that.
    8
  4. This wasn't a carjacking. The question it raises is whether Naomi Biden's vehicle has Secret Service protection.
    7
  5. @sirtra  It's motor vehicle theft. And the difference between that and carjacking is huge. It's the substance that matters.
    3
  6. The real story here is that a president's grandchild's unoccupied car has Secret Service protection, and they use lethal force to protect it even when she's not around. Since when??
    3
  7.  @sigma2.093  🤣🤣🤣 👍
    3
  8. You don't need "stand your ground" when you are in your car. It's presumed your life is being threatened and you are free to use lethal force to protect yourself. When your car is unoccupied, you can't use lethal force to defend it. It's property. It's very important property, but it is just property.
    3
  9. I was burgled. It wasn't a big deal. The alarm scared the burger off, he rummaged around quickly, apparently looking for money, then left. He committed no vandalism. I had the means to stay in a hotel for a few days while repairs to the door were made. If he had swept everything off the kitchen table or poured my cooking oils all over the carpet, or done anything else to show hatred, I would feel differently. Pure property crimes without threat to life or limb are not to be met with lethal force. The law is clear. I would have wanted to talk to the burglar in my case.
    3
  10. A carjacking is with the owner present. That is a violent crime. Auto theft is not.
    3
  11. @utah_koidragon7117  The question I have is why presidential grandchildren's cars have Secret Service protection. I thought only their persons merited that. Wow. They really are contemptuous of us, aren't they?
    3
  12.  @leevy6753  There are more of us than you might think.
    3
  13.  @leevy6753  For me, where a car is concerned, it would be about the money. I can't afford to replace a Volvo S80 AWD. I may never have another.
    3
  14. HOW DID YOU MISS THE REAL STORY? Does Naomi Biden's unoccupied vehicle merit Secret Service protection?
    2
  15. @alostcause4035  And since when does the empty vehicle of a president's grandkid have a Secret Service detail? Almost funny.
    2
  16.  @utah_koidragon7117  💯 SO well said!!
    2
  17. @jadesea562  Violent crime actually has a precise legal definition. In most jurisdictions, if not all, motor vehicle theft when there are no people present is a serious felony but not a violent one.
    2
  18. @leevy6753  It was my house that was broken into. If it were my car, it would be about the money. I wouldn't take it personally. As I said, I was not vandalized. Had I been, I am sure it would have upset me much more. But as matters stood, dealing with my insurance was much worse than the burglary. That's where a person confronts banal, routinized heartlessness and immorality. That always disturbs me because it WILL repeat. You can count on that forever. It's set up that way, and treated as being fine and good. At least we all agree theft is wrong.
    2
  19. @jadesea562  I'm saying that dealing with the insurance company was the traumatic part, not the burglary itself. I would have wanted to speak to the burglar. There was no getting through to the insurer. There never will be. I hope the day when we regard any property as equivalent in value to any life will never come. The fact that fear has nearly brought it here already is what I lament.
    2
  20. With Secret Service protecting it? Wow, just wow. The establishment lives in another world.
    1
  21.  @sirtra  Who said "grand theft auto?"
    1
  22.  @Marty234  Amen
    1
  23.  @dangerousdylan6262  Where is that? I've seen a few places where a car can be defended with deadly force during certain hours of the night, but when you read the statute, you see there are so many pitfalls that there's no guarantee you wouldn't end up paying a lawyer several times more than the value of the car. Better be sure before you try it.
    1
  24. @robg5717  HA. Who cares whether life or limb is in danger? How much does the car cost? Is the owner an Important Person? /s
    1
  25. I agree with you.
    1
  26. How did they miss the real story? Does Naomi Biden's unoccupied vehicle merit Secret Service protection?
    1
  27. Does Naomi Biden's unoccupied vehicle merit Secret Service protection?
    1
  28. @cnice7903  By joyriding, they are having (what they consider) fun that they couldn't otherwise have. I agree it's not worth it, but it's not the crime of the century.
    1
  29. Does Naomi Biden's unoccupied vehicle merit Secret Service protection? Is it acceptable to use deadly force in defense of property that is unoccupied, and the owner is nowhere nearby? Since when?
    1
  30.  @CCCCC40  So go ahead, shoot??
    1
  31. No, actually. Lethal force in defense of property is not legal.
    1
  32. And a Biden granddaughter's empty car has Secret Service protection. Wow, just wow.
    1
  33. ​ @TheBruuz If he has PTSD from that, he should speak to someone, agreed. It's excessive.
    1
  34.  @leevy6753  I was burgled. It was no big deal. It's the Chicago in me.
    1